That fact remains that Tertullian says neither kneeling or fasting occurs on the Lord's Day. He does not limit what defines the Lord's day so it is reasonable, it seems to me, to conclude it does mean every Sunday.
Tertullian wrote LONG before Nicea, so we can see Nicea merely codified the Christsian practice of STANDING<>
Tertullian says "We regard it as unlawful to fast or worship on our knees on the Lord's Day. We rejoice in the same priviledge from the Paschal Day until Pentecost.
So, over 100 years prior to Nicea, folks were standing from Easter to Pentecost.<>
To repeat: this particular passage has to do with penitential practices, NOT posture at Mass.
IN effect, Tertullian wrote about a "holiday from penitential practices" which extended from Easter Day through the Octave of Pentecost, AS OPPOSED to other days of the year.
My recollection is that this passage may have even been directed to catechumens as well as penitents, but I can't swear to that.
I grant you that the Lit has changed, with many Gallican influences (e.g., the Agnus Dei) over the years, and that only ROME has the power to regulate the liturgy.
Unlike some others, I am also quite aware that major and minor 'tweaks' were done over the years---e.g., (major): Pius XII allowed symphonic instruments to accompany choirs with a letter dated Christmas, 1955?/6?; and (minor) John XXIII eliminated certain prayers from the Triduum celebrations in 1960?/1?.
But what is NOT addressed by your responses, and which seems to me to be a major point, is the following: several American Bishops have declared that those who do not stand for reception of Commuion are disobedient.
This is plainly a deliberate misinterpretation of the Vatican document on the topic, or at best, a bit 'over the top.'
Please remember that the 'sensus fidelium' has rarely been disturbed by Roman regulations. Thus, "while kneeling was the common practice" means exactly that--and I find it VERY significant that the apparent 'sensus fidelium' was to kneel. Although you chose not to fully address my analogies with regard "fealty and Kings" this, too, is an important piece of the puzzle.
What we have here, today, is a regulation (as interpreted by SOME Bishops) which goes directly AGAINST the 'sensus fidelium.' And in so doing, the regulation is not consonant with other, similar, regulations issued by Rome.
Hammond may spin Jungmann's research, and Jungmann may speculate where documents are not available---all of that is a given.
But Hammond' spin, in this case, is counter-intuitive--it goes against what Jungmann plainly stated, and against even the secular traditions of kneeling before Kings to express humility (and fealty.)
Why would the Church do that??
She would not, EXCEPT for one possible reason: Rome has been deceived.
If you don't believe me, look carefully at the history of the "stand for Communion" order as detailed by Adoremus Bulletin's last two issues.
The American Bishops' representatives simply deceived Rome in stating that 'the practice of standing for reception of Commuion is universal in the American Church.'
I can tell you from personal experience and observation that that 'universality' was MANUFACTURED by the liturgy wonks and, if you wish, I will detail the processes used, because I was subjected to them, step-by-step, over a 6 year period in a Milwaukee-area parish which was run by a Rembert Weakland clone.
I sent an email (and thousands of others did, too) to a contact at the Cong/DiviniCultus and told him the same story. WITHIN ONE YEAR, the mandate to stand was SEVERELY MODIFIED by the Prefect of DiviniCultus.
Besides 'cooking the books' by forcing people to stand (and then making it seem like it was damn near spontaneous--even you will admit that it was NOT so--) the representatives to Rome also LIED. Standing was NOT a 'universal practice,' even in the N.O parishes. I can show you at least one Parish in every major city in which the people KNEEL for commmunion (some stand, some kneel.)
The fact of the matter is that this change did NOT grow from a 'sensus fidelium;' it sprang from the minds of the liturgy wonks (I suspect Hammond is one) and is, therefore, suspect.
This is no different in its way than Wilton Gregory's idea that for children's Masses on Christmas the term "feedbox" should be substituted for "manger." It got nowhere, because even Rome understood the utter vapidity of this "thought" from the ICEL crowd.
Prediction: over time, the enlightened Bishops of this country will allow, as did Bruskewitz, either posture. And as communion rails are slowly but surely re-placed in churches, kneeling will once again prevail--but it will not be IMPOSED by a pointyheaded bedwetter under utterly false and subversive cover. It will not be "twisted" from the writings of Jungmann.
AND it will be, subconsciously, a recognition of the human instinct to KNEEL in the presence of a King, which IS the 'sensus fidelium.'